(a) Whether a worker may withdraw his/her expression of intent to resign in a case where the worker has subscribed for termination of an agreement on the labor contract by the method of submitting a private employee and the employer has consented to such termination;

(b) The case holding that it is null and void for the school to make a disposition of dismissal on the ground of the above resignation since the withdrawal has the validity of such withdrawal, unless there are special circumstances, even though the teacher has submitted resignation at least three months after the date of preparation, but has withdrawn his resignation before the date of preparation

A. It is not a case of voluntary resignation by the method of notifying the termination of an employment contract to unilaterally terminate the employment contract relations, but in the case where a worker offers to terminate the agreement by the method of the submission of the employee's letter of consent and accepts it by the employer, the employee may freely withdraw his/her intention of resignation before the termination of the employment contract is made conclusive after the employee's consent is formed upon the submission of the above employee's letter of consent. However, even before the termination of the employment contract, it is reasonable to interpret that withdrawal of his/her intention of resignation is not allowed only when there are special circumstances deemed contrary to the good faith principle, such as where the employee withdraws his/her intention of resignation before the termination of the employment contract.

B. The case holding that, in case where a teacher decided to resign due to the continuous performance of his/her position because of the lack of his/her position, and the teacher presented his/her intention to resign from his/her position three months later before the date of preparation, but the school expressed his/her intention to work again on the ground of his/her resignation, the submission of the above private employee constitutes a case where the employer offers the employer to terminate his/her labor contract relations, and that the school expressed his/her intention to work again on the ground of his/her resignation should be deemed to have withdrawn his/her previous intention of resignation, and thus, it is done before the school's internal consent was formed with respect to the offer for termination of the agreement for termination of the labor contract relations in accordance with the method of submission of the above private employee, and thus, it should be deemed that the withdrawal of the above resignation intention has become effective legally unless there are any special circumstances deemed contrary to the good faith principle, such as allowing the withdrawal of the above resignation intention to the school's non-performance on the part of the school.

(b)Article 527 of the Civil Code and Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act;

Plaintiff

○○ Private Teaching Institute (Attorney Tae Tae-kon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na27612 delivered on October 25, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of all the evidences consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's submission of resignation from February 28, 1989 was not of intention, or was based on the defendant corporation's coercion, fraud, or recommendation, and that the disease will be cured until February 28, 1989 as a condition for rescission is just and acceptable, and there is no error of violating the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss this issue.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

On February 23, 1989, the plaintiff's assertion, that is, the plaintiff's withdrawal of his intention of resignation prior to the retirement effect by the submission of the private staff of this case. Accordingly, the court below held that the plaintiff's subsequent refusal of resignation constitutes a nullification of the disposition to dismiss the council member of this case against the plaintiff. The court below held that the plaintiff's expression of intention of resignation was not effective on February 28, 1989, because it was already effective on December 198, 198, which was the date of the submission of the private staff of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's expression of intention of resignation was not effective on February 28, 1989.

However, it is not a case of voluntary resignation by the notice method of termination that unilaterally terminates the labor contract relations of an employee, but a case where the employment relationship is terminated by the employee's offering for termination of the agreement and accepting the consent of the employee upon the submission method of the employee, the employee can freely withdraw his/her intention before the termination of the labor contract is made conclusive after the employee's consent is formed upon the submission of the above employee's letter of consent. However, even before the termination of the labor contract, it is reasonable to interpret that the withdrawal of the employee's expression of intention to resign is not allowed only when there are special circumstances recognized contrary to the good faith principle, such as the withdrawal of the employee's intention to resign before the termination of the labor contract.

In this case, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff was employed as a teacher of ○ High School established and operated by the defendant corporation and was frequently employed due to chronic infection diseases, and the continued performance of his/her school duties is no longer difficult due to the complaints from the school teachers who are in charge of resistance or reinforcement from his/her parents, etc., the plaintiff was determined to resign on December 1, 198, and submitted them to the non-party who is the above principal. However, in order to clarify this in accordance with the above consent, it is clear that the preparation date of the above private employee was stated as February 28, 198 as stated by the board of directors on the ground that he/she had been removed from the board of directors on February 28, 1989, and that the non-party employee was removed from his/her office on the ground that he/she should undergo a resolution of the board of directors on the ground that he/she was removed from office of the above non-party principal and the non-party employee was removed from his/her office.

In light of the above facts, the submission of the plaintiff's above private staff constitutes a case where the plaintiff ordered the employer to terminate the agreement on the labor contract relations immediately. Since the plaintiff submitted inevitable resignation due to the disease and completely cured the disease, it shall be deemed that the previous expression of intention to resign has been withdrawn. This is made before the defendant corporation's internal consent was formed with respect to the offer for termination of the labor contract relations with the above private staff, and it shall be deemed that the withdrawal of the above resignation intention has become effective lawfully unless there are special circumstances deemed to violate the good faith principle, such as allowing the withdrawal of the above resignation intention would cause damage to the defendant corporation, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the defendant corporation's dismissal of the plaintiff by the previous member only after the withdrawal of the plaintiff's resignation intention would be null and void.

On the ground that the above declaration of resignation was already effective at the beginning of December 1988 when the plaintiff submitted the resignation, the court below did not review at all as to whether or not the withdrawal of the plaintiff's declaration of resignation or the permission for such withdrawal was against the good faith and rejected the plaintiff's withdrawal of the above declaration of resignation, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the incomplete hearing or the withdrawal of the declaration of intention, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)